Debate contribution: Hospital Parking Charges Bill: Final Stage
Debate contribution by Mr Colin McGrath on .
- MLA
- Mr Colin McGrath
- Party at the time
- Social Democratic and Labour Party
- Date
- 20 April 2026
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Hospital Parking Charges Bill: Final Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5494021
Read the official Assembly record
Text
Well, well, well. Here we are again. We are at the Final Stage of the Executive undoing the last piece of legislation that was passed in the previous mandate. I will say that again. It is the Executive's Bill that is going to be passed. The original Bill promised so much and delivered only confusion, frustration and anger. Free car parking for everyone at all our hospitals — staff, patients or visitors — and here we stand today to hit a further pause button on that process. We know that the Bill is likely to have the numbers to pass today. With it, the promise made to patients in 2022 will be delayed yet again. While it is true that every party supported the Act in 2022, it is also true that every Executive party supported this Bill's getting to the Floor of the Assembly to be debated. Sinn Féin can say many things about opposing delaying the removal of hospital car parking charges, but the Bill will end up being passed today because it has been able to get here today. It has been able to get to the Assembly as an Executive Bill.
Yes, of course.
I will just go back to my earlier sentence: a Bill that promised so much and delivered only confusion, frustration and then anger. The confusion bit comes because we were all promised stuff in a private Member's Bill at the end of the previous mandate. We all supported it, and then, as soon as we came back into this place, the first thing that happened was that it was undone. Now we are here, and it will be undone once again. We have said that we voted for it. We supported it at the end of the previous mandate, and all that we have had in front of us since have been Bills to delay that, and we voted against the delaying in this Bill. That is truly the definition of speaking out of both sides of your mouth: "We are happy for this to go down on to the Floor but we are not going to support it". That does not mean that it is not going to pass. When it comes to the transparency that is needed with Bills, the SDLP was the only party to ensure that there was openness and transparency. The amendment that we tabled at the previous stage, which was supported, because it passed and is in the Bill, ensures that where money is going to be spent through the Bill, the public will be told. If there is one thing that the Executive do not like, it is scrutiny. If the delay is going to cost money, we want to make sure that people know that. I will follow up on some of the correct remarks that the Chair of the Committee made. It is good to see that we are having the discussion, because we have all been lobbied about children who have been diagnosed with cancer. We are told that there are 135 such children and young people every year. Part of the quid pro quo was that those people would be sorted out. When it came down to trust level, they would be able to get assistance and not have to face those charges. What we are being told by the charity that represents them, however, is that they are still facing those charges. That is now. So there is no guarantee that children with cancer can be protected from the charges, yet we are being asked to support the delay on the basis that people such as those children will be helped, but the evidence at this stage is to the contrary. I ask the Executive, through the Minister of Health, what specific, measurable protections will be in place during the delay to ensure that every child with cancer and their family can access free car parking. That is not just a policy; that is the practice. I do not want to hear that trusts "should" or trusts "might". What measurable items will be put in place to ensure that those protections are there so that we can protect them? If we cannot protect them, all we are doing is prolonging a situation where families already under immense strain are asked to shoulder costs that they should never have had to face in the first place. That is not something that we should be comfortable with. That is why we in the SDLP have acted to try to bring some transparency to the Bill. We have made our thoughts known. It should have been brought in and implemented at the start of the mandate as per the agreement of the Assembly in its previous mandate. We should stop messing about with the public, because they really know when people are talking out of both sides of their mouth, because it is blindingly obvious when you do that.
826 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.07 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.87).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.06 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.01 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.08 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.87 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.07 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-related subject | 0.48 |
| Disability (including neurodivergence and mental health), disabled people and disability or sickness benefits | 0.44 |
| Another identity-related subject | 0.03 |
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.02 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.02 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 15:26 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.